Three-way state college battle is brewing

Thursday

Jan 3, 2008 at 2:00 PMAug 21, 2013 at 10:14 AM

By DAN WALTERS

When the boards that govern California's public universities voted to oppose Proposition 92, a measure sponsored by community colleges to protect their state financing, it crystallized a growing level of animosity among higher-education officials.

What was once envisioned as a seamless, cooperative three-part system of post-high-school education has devolved into an elbow-throwing competition for students, high-dollar private donations and, most importantly, state financing.

Community-college officials fashioned Proposition 92 to protect themselves from being squeezed in a political vise - the powerful, union-driven K-12 coalition being one jaw and the politically connected four-year universities the other.

Community colleges have complained that they have been routinely shorted on their fair shares of education operating funds and construction bonds, even though their campuses educate two-thirds of the state's public higher-education students, and especially those from poor economic circumstances.

With the state facing increasingly difficult budgets, however, Proposition 92 has drawn fire from both the K-12 coalition and, in back-to-back resolutions adopted in November, from the governing boards of the University of California and the California State University systems.
"Passage of Proposition 92 could result in a reduction in the university's state-funded budget," UC's Board of Regents declared, "which in turn could result in erosion of university programs and services.

"Proposition 92 requires more state funding and reduces student fees for one segment of higher education without regard to the needs of all higher education," the resolution continued - ironically echoing the years-long lament of community-college leaders.

Were the anti-Proposition 92 resolutions an isolated situation, they could be dismissed as a momentary flare-up. But they cap years of growing rivalry among the three systems.

A case in point is breaching what had been one of the lines of demarcation in the decades-old Master Plan for Higher Education - reserving doctoral-degree programs as the exclusive province of the University of California.

While UC and CSU had established some joint doctoral programs, the line held until the latter mounted a full-court political press two years ago to win the right to issue doctorates. The original bill granted CSU wide doctoral-degree powers, but with UC's fierce opposition, the final version gave CSU authority in just one area, educational administration.

There's little doubt in education circles, however, that as CSU issues doctorates, it will seek broader authority, with corollary impacts on research grants, campus construction and other financial matters.

The doctoral-degree collision reflects the aggressively expansive attitude embraced by CSU Chancellor Charles Reed, who has pushed presidents of his 23 campuses to pursue the sorts of private donor and foundation support that UC had routinely received in years past. It also reflects the disarray in UC's upper ranks over a series of semi-scandals involving, among other things, under-the-table payments to favored administrators. There is a vacuum. Reed, it would appear, wants CSU to fill it.

The CSU aggressiveness is aimed downward as well as upward, as a current flap in the Bay Area's eastern suburbs illustrates. The Contra Costa Community College District's board is publicly upset by Cal State East Bay's decision to begin offering lower-division classes at its Concord campus - thus competing for students who would otherwise attend community colleges.

These public conflicts large and small are the harbingers of what could become an all-out political war among California's higher-education systems.

ABOUT THE WRITER
Dan Walters writes about state politics for the Sacramento Bee. Write him at dwalters@sacbee.com.